leicsmac

You could be right to be honest, the real thing will be to see where we are in a few years time. That being said, the response from the usual print media suspects was predictable to pretty much anyone.

Perhaps because they can see rather clearly that picking a side on this highly charged matter doesn't actually give them anything politically. And all the time social inequality is getting larger, biodiversity is dropping, and vital resources are becoming more scarce.

*Looks at today's front pages* Yep. It was a mistake.

I remember reading that Kyoto (Japan's ancient capital) was only spared from the target list because a high ranking US politician had spent his honeymoon there. Also, if a third bomb had been used, the likely target would indeed have been Tokyo. And it's not even the spectacular method of wrecking people's lives that's the only, or even the biggest problem with Trump - it's the everyday little things that he's done, is doing and will do that make the world a worse place for everyone except himself and a very small demographic.

And/or utilise more advanced tech for the job, which carries its own attendant worries and problems. As you say, it's tricky. It's just rather unfortunate that those who saw and pointed out exactly what he was a long time ago weren't listened to. Now almost everyone is paying the price, and I fear that price has only just begun to come due.

I'm reasonably sure that people are already being set up for "accidents" if this administration can't get the legal system to do its dirty work for them.

I doubt that there will be any slowdown whatsoever in global average temperature increase with that factor as a variable by itself.

At least the policy advocated for at PMQ's doesn't (the vast majority of the time) actually threaten a great many human lives in direct opposition to scientific fact. The same sadly cannot be said of the current US administration.

The funny thing about scientific laws and the Earth that works by them is that they remain true whether a human believes them or not. And their consequences will happen in spite of the ridiculous denial of it. And all the time some very decent people are wondering with more than a little fear about what might happen from here.

In other news, Trump putting the world economy at risk of global recession. Quelle surprise.

I guess we'll see what political capital he'll make out if it, if any, in the long run.

I think being ambiguous on it, rather than picking it as a hill to die on as the Dems did, would have been the smartest play. But you could well be right and I guess only time is going to tell. I think he could have simply batted off the questioning as a lot of it was bait from people who would never vote for him anyway, as per above. Also, as you say, it's a bit foolish to choose a position that is polar different to the one you had a few years ago on this matter rather than simply keeping his own counsel about it. But again as per above, I guess time will tell.

Starmer removing his ambiguity on trans matters will lose him more votes than it gains, seeing as people who are full-bore for the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't vote for him in any kind of number anyway. It's a mistake.

Population/demographic pressure is an issue that's coming up more and more often both here and out in the world. It's such a bloody difficult problem because there don't appear to be any good options - you accept that there's going to be a period of time where agree demographics are badly lopsided while populations stabilise, with all the social problems that entails, or you try to boost the birth rate/population to compensate in a world where inequality is rampant and finite resources may already be diminishing past the point of no return, with all the dire consequences that entails. If there's a third option that doesn't result in a lot of problems down the line, I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.

I doubt it, because you either require a totally liberated environment where women feel absolutely comfortable with choosing career or kids or balancing both with no big consequence, or you need a totally Afghanistan-style repressive environment where women have to do their "duty". The US (and Korea) is in between the two and so offers neither. (Though if Trump and those backing him get their way, the latter may become more real than most people would like.)